| Revision as of 05:42, 18 March 2010 editGranitethighs (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users12,213 edits →Common names: addendum← Previous edit | Revision as of 05:43, 18 March 2010 edit undoGranitethighs (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users12,213 editsm →Common namesNext edit → | ||
| Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
| :Hesperian, you seem to like throwing your weight around. In the light of our common interests I would have hoped that you would use whatever authority it is you have in a more constructive and productive way. I do not take what you have said lightly and suggest that you live up to your claims - there is not one rule for me and another for you. I referred to a particular article making the statement that modern scientific taxonomy is "''basically a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles.''" The article was by ], ], Breedlove, Dennis E. 1971. The origins of taxonomy. ''Science''. New Series '''174(4015)''': 1210-1213. The citation was to page 1210. I do not have that reference to hand but I take my research sufficiently seriously to trust my judgement. I agree that if I have made an error then I should at least humbly recognize both the error and its import. If I have made a mistake then I will willingly no longer edit on Misplaced Pages. However, having said that, then the reverse must apply. If I am correct then you should immediately withdraw from editing and, if you do not, then I shall suggest in the appropriate arena that you be permanently blocked. Your approach is not a helpful one. I shall be interested to hear your response and explanation - especially if you have immediate access to the article. There remains the question of ''why'' you should take the approach that you have taken. I think that on the talk page to Common Names this becomes clear from a previous altercation. Unfortunately it seems you have, over a long period, maintained resentment about unimportant things said in the past (which I had long since forgotten).] 05:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | :Hesperian, you seem to like throwing your weight around. In the light of our common interests I would have hoped that you would use whatever authority it is you have in a more constructive and productive way. I do not take what you have said lightly and suggest that you live up to your claims - there is not one rule for me and another for you. I referred to a particular article making the statement that modern scientific taxonomy is "''basically a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles.''" The article was by ], ], Breedlove, Dennis E. 1971. The origins of taxonomy. ''Science''. New Series '''174(4015)''': 1210-1213. The citation was to page 1210. I do not have that reference to hand but I take my research sufficiently seriously to trust my judgement. I agree that if I have made an error then I should at least humbly recognize both the error and its import. If I have made a mistake then I will willingly no longer edit on Misplaced Pages. However, having said that, then the reverse must apply. If I am correct then you should immediately withdraw from editing and, if you do not, then I shall suggest in the appropriate arena that you be permanently blocked. Your approach is not a helpful one. I shall be interested to hear your response and explanation - especially if you have immediate access to the article. There remains the question of ''why'' you should take the approach that you have taken. I think that on the talk page to Common Names this becomes clear from a previous altercation. Unfortunately it seems you have, over a long period, maintained resentment about unimportant things said in the past (which I had long since forgotten).] 05:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
| :I have read what I have written and think you might assume I have avoided the content of the rest of the paragraph. As I hope you would know, the origins of scientific binomial nomenclature in "folk" taxonomy - which is what it is describing, is often referred to in botanical texts. I can easily find other references if that is what is at issue (though I suspect it is not). ] 05:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | ::I have read what I have written and think you might assume I have avoided the content of the rest of the paragraph. As I hope you would know, the origins of scientific binomial nomenclature in "folk" taxonomy - which is what it is describing, is often referred to in botanical texts. I can easily find other references if that is what is at issue (though I suspect it is not). ] 05:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 05:43, 18 March 2010
User talk:Hesperian/Archive 47/Archives
Gasp
a desert like talk page - may i orfishially congrat u on the sesselis FA status - may you not be detrimentally afflicted by such an achievement - there are many more erbs and orests as yet un touched by you that need the gift of the dab hand and the skill of coping with FA gate keepers - for that alone you must deserve a round or two - whenever SatuSuro 13:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks mate. I rather feel as though all I do is write content. When it comes to the FAC spit'n'polish, I must defer to Cas. Hesperian 14:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, content is overrated. :-) --Curtis Clark (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Oh shit. I hope I didn't just dish Cas a backhanded compliment. He writes more content than me, actually; and he does the FAC polishing.
In hindsight, I find it hard to believe I constructed a non-sarcastic sentence around "all I do is write content". :-)
- Oh shit. I hope I didn't just dish Cas a backhanded compliment. He writes more content than me, actually; and he does the FAC polishing.
- Yeah, content is overrated. :-) --Curtis Clark (talk) 03:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Common names
You reverted what I had done before I had a chance to add the citation. Citation is now added - thanks.Granitethighs 04:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- Hesperian, you seem to like throwing your weight around. In the light of our common interests I would have hoped that you would use whatever authority it is you have in a more constructive and productive way. I do not take what you have said lightly and suggest that you live up to your claims - there is not one rule for me and another for you. I referred to a particular article making the statement that modern scientific taxonomy is "basically a Renaissance codification of folk taxonomic principles." The article was by Raven, Peter H., Berlin, Brent, Breedlove, Dennis E. 1971. The origins of taxonomy. Science. New Series 174(4015): 1210-1213. The citation was to page 1210. I do not have that reference to hand but I take my research sufficiently seriously to trust my judgement. I agree that if I have made an error then I should at least humbly recognize both the error and its import. If I have made a mistake then I will willingly no longer edit on Misplaced Pages. However, having said that, then the reverse must apply. If I am correct then you should immediately withdraw from editing and, if you do not, then I shall suggest in the appropriate arena that you be permanently blocked. Your approach is not a helpful one. I shall be interested to hear your response and explanation - especially if you have immediate access to the article. There remains the question of why you should take the approach that you have taken. I think that on the talk page to Common Names this becomes clear from a previous altercation. Unfortunately it seems you have, over a long period, maintained resentment about unimportant things said in the past (which I had long since forgotten).Granitethighs 05:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
- I have read what I have written and think you might assume I have avoided the content of the rest of the paragraph. As I hope you would know, the origins of scientific binomial nomenclature in "folk" taxonomy - which is what it is describing, is often referred to in botanical texts. I can easily find other references if that is what is at issue (though I suspect it is not). Granitethighs 05:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)